The Volvo XC60 and V60 are capable vehicles in both their segments, but having driven both of them back to back and comparing their specs, I can't imagine why one would spend more on the crossover than the wagon. Here lies, in my opinion, a strong business case to consider wagons over crossovers.

Volvo's relaunching a wagon in the U.S. just when we're beginning to have heated debates…
Read more Read more

To be clear about one thing, loving wagons doesn't mean you have to hate crossovers, and vice versa. If I were to find one defense for the crossover, it's the step-in height for older drivers and passengers. I'm fortunate enough to have two living great-grandmothers in their 90s, one of whom drives an Escape and the other who rides in my aunt's Escape. Neither of them are physically able to constantly get in and out of a lower-sitting car, pickups aren't functional for their needs and true SUVs are too expensive.

That said, I fully understand the enthusiast disdain for crossovers. Most buyers (I'd agree) buy them for the perceived safety, they dilute the heritage of popular brands and, in some circumstances, take away the R&D dollars from fun projects.

Advertisement

But, as TTAC'sDerek Kriendler tweeted,
few wagon defenders put their money where their mouth is when it comes
to advocating the product. Cries from the wagon faithful are drowned out
by consumers who want the crossover. But
strangely — intentionally? — Volvo is able to split the difference
with the V60, maybe at the expense of the XC60.

The V60 came with a 2.0-liter, inline-four that makes 240 horsepower and 258 lb.-ft. of torque. The
XC60, has the same twin-turbo, four-cylinder 2.0L that makes
302 horsepower. On the surface, those numbers
look capable. But I don't know what happened and where all that power is
going, but it didn't do much for the XC60 here. It has some low-end
torque, but chokes around 3,000-4,000 RPM. Getting it to, say, 70 mph
was more of a struggle than it should have been.

Steering
on the XC60 was unusually stiff. You know those sit-'n-spins you used
to play with? Not the one your kids play with now. The one you
played with. The really heavy ones. Yeah. You were not a super-strong
kid growing up. You had to put in a little muscle to get that damn thing
to turn. That's how it was getting the XC60 around some of Las Vegas'
curves. Not only that, XC60 had trouble snapping back in line
coming off most curves. I'm going to chalk that up to the XC60 being
heavier and harder to push around.

The XC60 has all of the same safety features as the V60 (blind-spot assist, backup camera, a low-speed collision-avoidance system and audible alerts for parking) plus
adaptive cruise control, lane-departure warning, forward collision
warning with auto-braking, pedestrian and cyclist detection. It's typical safety-in-a-box for Volvo, but not necessary if you prefer the less-optioned V60.

A few of you asked in the V60 review about the cabin space, especially in the rear. Well, the XC60 has the V60 by that because it's taller. But it's roughly the same space between the liftback and the backseat, and the seats in both vehicles easily fold down the same way.

Trunk space aside, I had the same amount of legroom in the XC60. One would think that the
crossover would provide more room, but I had the same headroom and
legroom all around both models. It's here, I wonder, if it's worth spending the extra money on a crossover if you absolutely don't need one.

The V60 has an MSRP of $35,300 while the XC60 starts at $35,750. To
get a bigger vehicle for $450 might seem like a steal. But let's start
adding things and factoring in some other numbers. The price of the XC60
is with the T5 engine. If you want the T6 — the one Volvo had us test
— then you're looking at a starting MSRP of $40,050.

All of those
prices are without all-wheel-drive. An AWD V60 starts at $36,800. An
AWD XC60 isn't available with the 2.5, but is available with Volvo's
3.2L for $37,250. With the T6 we tested, an AWD XC60 jumps to $41,550.

If
you want to compare just the two models we tested — toys and all —
it's $35,300 for the V60 and $40,050 for the XC60. So what are you
paying $5,000 extra more? Basically some extra trunk space and woodgrain
in the center console.

The
value in the V60 can also be found in the fuel economy: While the V60
gets 25 city/37 highway with FWD (20/29 with AWD), the fatter XC60
doesn't measure up regardless of which engine you have. The XC60 gets
24/31 with a FWD T5, 18/25 with the 3.2L and, in the T6 I tested, 22/30.

The
XC60 is not a terrible vehicle. It is attractive, it is full of things
to keep you safe, it's a relatively affordable premium crossover that
offers more perks than other kid-haulers on the lower end. It just
doesn't compare to the V60, which offers all the same perks without the
"perceived safety" of being a crossover. But in this case, you don't
even need the perception of safety, since Volvo is bundling actual
safety into the vehicle.